sell 14 and 45? then what?

Currently own, the 14, 17/2.8, 30, 45/1.8 and 40-150.

Don't really like the 14 much or use it much. Love the 45, but don't use it much. Thinking of selling both.

But then what??? If I'm left with the 17/2.8, 30 and 40-150 I will have the very cheapest set of m43 lenses made. Don't know if I could live with this!

One possibility is to sell the 17/2.8 with the other 2 and dump all the money on the 17/1.8. Like the scale focus feature. Don't know if I really will see much difference in qualtiy at f5.6 where I shoot almost everything.

Second choice is to sell 14, 30 and 45 and get the P/L 25. The thing stopping me is that it is so big and I've actually been enjoying the longer 30mm FL. Very happy with the 30's performance at f5.6.

thoughts?

--
mark hahn
http://markhahnphotography.wordpress.com/

But then what??? Go and take lots of pix you love!!!

I have a range of lenses for my pro work but when I’m out taking pkx for myself is the 14 on the E-PL3 and the 40-150 in m pocket. Very occasionally, I will take out the 45 instead of the 40-150 of with the 40-150 (just because I feel like it).

But the 145 and 40-150 are my lenses of choice nearly all the time.

Oh -- plus a c/u lens fr the 40-150. Just in case I need a close-up of a pimple or something! 

It does need to cost lots of money to be lots of fun and produce top flight results.

Cheers, geoff

---

Geoffrey Heard
http://pngtimetraveller.blogspot.com/2011/10/return-to-karai-komana_31.html

Yeah, I know that... but as has been said over and over again, this is a gear forum. we are here because we like talking about gear!

I am always taking photos, in fact, I've even been told I post too many photos to this forum!

Now I post a gear topic and I have people telling me gear doesn't matter.

--
mark hahn
http://markhahnphotography.wordpress.com/

Take pride that your able to squeeze every penny out of your cheap ass lenses. (I wish I could).  Then buy yourself the most expensive camera bag to put it all into!

Sorry, Mark, I didn’t mean to sound like quite such a smart-a-s. And I didn’t make fully clear (among the typos) where I was actually coming from. I went through much the same questioning between the 14  and the f2.8 17 -- eventually selling the 17. I have to say I miss it about one photo opportunity a month, which is a photo I would miss anyway if I still had the lens because I would be too busy changing lenses to get  the picture! 

Keep posting the pix!!!

Gear does matter, I think, you have to have confidence in your gear and feel that it is right for you, but I wouldn’t call this a gear forum -- although some people would like to make it so -- this is a photography forum for people using a certain range of gear -- the m43 format. The gear is pointless without the pix.

Hey, here’s a thought. I had a fad for a little while using optical viewfinders for the 14, 17, and 45 lenses on the E-PL3. Worked quite well for the 14 and 17, but less well for the 45. Seek out an OVF for the 17 and see how you go with it. I actually found with the OVF that I used the 17 more and the 14 (with OVF) less. With the VF2 happening, I hardly used the 17!

Weird!

Cheers, geoff

--
Geoffrey Heard
http://pngtimetraveller.blogspot.com/2011/10/return-to-karai-komana_31.html

Geoff,

Nah, your reply was fine, I just got fired up after reading the other two -- both of which were downright rude.

As I said, this is just talk, there are always "which lens" discussions here so I thought this would be fine, and it was different than just the standard, "which is the sharpest lens, I don't care about FL" thread...

I know the P/L 25 is significantly better than either the 17/2.8 or the Sigma 30, but it feels too big to me to become my main lens... and I'm still holding out hope that Oly will release a smaller 25... so keeping the Sigma 30 is more temporary in my mind, but it is a fine lens and I'm taking plenty of great photos with it now.

While the little 17/2.8 is not holding me back, I guess the pixel peeper in me always knows that it isn't the sharpest lens in the world, even though my gallery prints are always fine.I like the idea of the scale focusing too...

but no critical panic... just thinking about it...

thanks!

--
mark hahn
http://markhahnphotography.wordpress.com/

Hahaha! Or I could just do nothing and continue primarily shooting my 17 and 30 and let the others just sit in the bag.

--
mark hahn
http://markhahnphotography.wordpress.com/

my little Case Logic bag from Walmart I might add!

--
mark hahn
http://markhahnphotography.wordpress.com/

If you don't need anything besides a 17mm pancake, you should be HAPPY that you have a shooting style that works so well with such lightweight and inexpensive gear.

Maybe you can use the money to buy an iPad or an iPhone or something useful like that.

Thank you for that - my same feelings. Photography forums are about Photography made with some gear. This should be self evident. People's minds are clouded with consumerism, and thus the cynical claim.

Curiously I have discovered that I have the same reductionist needs of Tedolf: the 9-18, the 17mm for pocketable, and the 40-150. Other than that we have a few legacy lenses.

I think I could shoot all day with the 17mm. As an experiment I might try the 30mm too: what I use Is really first about my energy levels. How close I can get into street shooting, or how intensely I can analyse a landscape. Gear is just a conveyance for what has been made in the mind.

Thus the less you carry the more you can imagine, without it getting in the way.

Am.

--
Photostream: http://www.flickr.com/photos/amalric

for each lens, don't ask just 'do I use it much?' Also ask 'When I do use it, would another lens do?'

Are there times you need the large aperture of the 45 for shallow DoF or low light?

Are there times you need the width of the 14mm? or find it's tiny size makes it handy to carry along?

If you don't use a lens in over a year, you probably don't need it. If you only use it once a month, but can't substitute another lens, you probably shouldn't dump it

I have gone out w just the 14 and 45, mostly for night shooting in town.  I do find the 14 a bit wide for general use, yet there's times it's not wide enough.  This month I'm keeping to the 9-18 to see what focal length I'm using most (12? 17?) Yes, even at night.  (at 1600 and EV-1, I can still shoot handheld)

The 17/1.8 is likely a better lens than the 2.8, but if you don't need the brighter aperture, it might be a waste to trade up. I'd certainly wait until I could get a deal on it and possible QC issues have been worked out.

btw, I have: 9-18, 12-50, 14, 45, 100-300, plus some 4/3 stuff that wasn't stolen. And yes, I use it all, some more than others, and depending on subject. There is overlap, but each lens fills a specific need, but there are some I would add or change (add 17/1.8, swap 4/3 40-150 for micro, swap 100-300 for 75-300, finally add the 60 or 75 and I'm done)

--
Art P
"I am a creature of contrast,
of light and shadow.
I live where the two play together,
I thrive on the conflict"

That would be silly.

the 14mm is for the 12mm or the 12-35 pany.  The field of view of the 14mm is great and it keeps proving itself to me.



--
Dan

It's the best portrait lens available for M43 (at least for the price).  It also doubles as nice flower lens.   It's just too good a lens not to have with me.  Of course a lens that's just gathering dust isn't doing anybody any good.

I'd say a good normal lens is a must - for m43 that would be in the 17 to 25mm range, but what's "normal" for one, may not be for another.

I like to have my bases covered so I'm using the oly 12mm, pany 25m and the oly 45mm.  The 12mm is my landscape and tight city lens.  The 25mm is my normal lens for people and street, and the 45mm is portraits and flowers.  The 12 and 25mm are certainly expensive though.   I'm debating on the 17mm.  Depending on what you shoot, I'd guess at least have the 17 and or the 25mm.

Anyway, every time a new lens comes out, I'm always re-evaluating my kit.  I guess that never ends.

Price doesn't matter.

Performance does.

Tedolph

Sell all your primes, keep your 40-150 and get a 14-42.  This advice comes from a guy who never shoots primes and doesn't even own one...now.  Primes are overrated.  Razor thin DOF never held any appeal to me.

Interesting thought, and I agree, but only to a point....I think it depends on where you do most of your shooting.

For instance:  When I am in town, the 14mm pancake is the ideal focal length for me.  That lens alone usually suffices for just about all my needs in the close quarters of the town.  I haven't found the need to use a kit short zoom since getting the 14mm at all, and keep meaning to sell the 14-45mm since I simply never, ever, use it.

At home, though, I never have enough light for indoor shooting, so the 25mm f1.4 works best (or the 45mm f1.8 or the vintage Yashica 50mm f1.8, depending on the FOV I want, and the need for AF).

When I am out on a walk in the woods, I find I actually use the most variety of lenses.  Sometimes there are close ups of plants I want, or long shots, or really wide shots.  In that case, I take the 14-140mm as the all purpose solution, but add the 12mm and the 100-30mm, and sometimes the legacy 55mm macro, for the heck of it....and I use them all.  If I took just the 12mm or 14mm, I would be frustrated by missing some good long shots or macro opportunities in the woods.

I think what lenses you need really strongly depends on what shooting environment you are in at the time....

-J

Add to the 14-42 the supplementary wide lens and you have an amazing range.



Cheers, geoff

--
Geoffrey Heard
http://pngtimetraveller.blogspot.com/2011/10/return-to-karai-komana_31.html

Frankly I am past the age where I need to have the equipment to shoot from the galaxies to the insect.

If you haven't set your mind about what you can successfully shoot, what you are good at, you'll just keep on collecting stuff just in case.

Nobody is good at everything. Very few are good at something.

Am.

--
Photostream: http://www.flickr.com/photos/amalric

Geez,  and I was agreeing with your original post, in large part.  I certainly don't think anyone needs a mondo bag of glass for every event, but heck, my point was that not having the lenses you need, in pursuit of minimalism, is just as silly as having 30 lbs of kit with you for a walk around town.

-J